1. The English Ditransitive Construction
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions. Ch. 6.
Lucas Champollion (thanks to Ryan Gabbard for some slides)
Nov 15th, 2004

2. The Ditransitive Construction
CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient >
Verb Subject Object Object2
PREDICATE < *** Insert Verb Here *** >
Instance or means
Pat mailed Bill a letter.
John will bake Mary a cake.

3. Outline Evidence for the construction
Evidence that it means “X successfully causes Y to receive Z, where X is a volitional and Y is either willing or has no choice”
Semantic constraints on X and Y
Some systematic metaphors that license extensions from the basic sense

4. The Ditransitive Construction: Why It Exists
okMary baked her sister a cake. (meaning: Mary baked a cake with the intention of giving it to her sister.)
*Mary baked her sister a cake. (meaning: Sally baked the cake so that her sister wouldn’t have to bake it)
*Mary baked her sister a cake. (meaning: Mary baked a cake for herself because her sister told her so)
 Transfer meaning either in construction or in bake
More evidence lies in the semantic constraints

5. Semantic Constraints on the Subject
*Joe threw the right fielder the ball he intended the first baseman to catch
okJoe painted Sally a picture.
 Subject must be volitional (i.e. an agent)
Problem: okOedipus gave his mother a kiss,
okMary accidentally loaned Bob a lot of money
 Constraints are the same as for murder

6. Semantic Constraints on Object1
okShe brought a package to the border.
*She brought the border a package.
okShe brought a package to the boarder.
okShe brought the boarder a package.
 Object1 must be animate (i.e. a recipient)

7. Semantic Constraints on Object1 (contd.)
Must either be willing: *Bill threw the coma victim a blanket
or have no choice: okBill gave Chris a headache / a kick / a speeding ticket.
Willingness ≠ benefit: okJack poured Jane an arsenic–laced martini.

8. Apparent Counterexamples
okThe medicine brought him relief.
okThe rain bought us some time.
okShe gave me the flu.
 Subject is not volitional!
Do these examples have anything in common?
cf. The document supplied us with some entertainment.

9. Reminder: Polysemy give, throw, take, feed refuse, deny
X successfully causes Y to receive Z
but also:
X causes Y not to receive Z
X intends to cause Y to receive Z
X enables Y to receive Z
refuse, deny
make, build, get, win, bake
Subject Verb Object Object2
permit, allow

10. A Systematic Metaphor: Causal Events as Transfers
CAUSE-”RECEIVE” < cause affectee effect >
Verb Subject Object Object2
PREDICATE < *** Insert Verb Here *** >
Instance or means
She gave me the flu. (unintentionally)

11. More Systematic Metaphors
Communication as Reception: She told Jo a fairy tale, She wired Jo a message (cf. Jo received the information from Bill)
Perceptions as Received Entities: He gave Bob a glimpse (cf. I caught a glimpse from him)
Directed Action as Transferred Entity: She blew him a kiss, She threw him a parting glance (cf. All he got from her was a goodbye wave)
Facts/Assumptions/Beliefs as Objects: I’ll grant you that much of your argument (cf. I don’t want to give up that assumption)

12. A More Complicated Case
Actions for Someone’s Benefit as Transferred Objects: Cry me a river, They’re going to kill Reagan a commie (cf. She graciously offered a ride to the airport, He owes you many favors)
recipient does not receive Object2 here  ?!
Source domain not ‘X causes Y to receive Z’ but ‘X causes Y to receive some object’
Target domain ‘X performs an action for the benefit of Y’
Therefore more constrained, dialectal variation: ?Cry Joe a river, ?Sally cried me a river

13. Thanks.